Jesus is Divine, but is He Equal? - A Fresh View of God for 2015

Co-Equal in Position or Co-Equal in Divine Nature?

The Scriptures are clear that Jesus does have “divine nature” or “the nature of God” (John 1:1; Colossians 2:9). What does this mean? Well, the only thing we really know about "God's nature" is that it's invisible and different from human nature.

Does Jesus possessing equal "nature" to God automatically mean He is equal in position or authority? Does your human nature mean you're automatically equal to President Obama in position or authority? I think you can see why this reasoning is false.

If Jesus is only Co-Equal to God in His nature or "species," what does that really tell us? Human beings are all equally human in their nature, but they have all kinds of positions and all kinds of authority. Some humans are rulers who are given honor and praise. Some humans are poor or homeless and looked down upon. Some humans are morally good and some are evil.

The Bible says that God's nature is “spirit” (John 4:24). But it also says that the nature of angels is “spirit” (Hebrews 1:7; Hebrews 1:14). The fact that angels have “the nature of God” (“spirit” nature) may also help to explain why angels are called gods in Psalm 8:5.

Plus, it even says that Christians will share in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). So, when the Bible says that Jesus has the nature of God, or divine nature, it's not necessarily saying anything beyond the fact that Jesus is a “spirit” in His nature, just like God and the angels are, and like Christians will be in Heaven (1 Corinthians 15:39-49).

Trinitarians need to show, from the Bible, why Jesus Christ's “nature of God” or “divine nature” is different from the “spirit” nature possessed by angels and Christians in Heaven. Can they do this?

Top Questions for Trinitarians about Jesus being Co-Equal to God:

If Jesus has always been Co-Equal to the Father, then Jesus was always Lord. How could there ever be a time when the Father had to make Jesus become Lord? (Acts 2:36)

How can you be "Co-Equal" with someone if you cannot make a decision on your own, without the approval of another? (John 5:19)

If Jesus has always been Yahweh, together with the Father and the Spirit, how could there ever be a time when Jesus had to wait to inherit the Divine Name? (Hebrews 1:4)

How can Jesus be Co-Equal to God and at the same time, give up His Kingdom to God and subject Himself to God? (1 Corinthians 15:28)

How could the Supreme Being be made lower than angels, and even if the Supreme Being could be made lower than angels for a little while, how could He still be Co-Equal to God and lower than angels at the very same time? (Hebrews 2:9)

I understand that the usual Trinitarian argument John 14:28 is that the Father was greater than Jesus while Jesus was a human on earth, but this still eliminates the claim that Jesus was always Co-Equal to God at all times, because, at this particular time, obviously He was not equal, according to Christ's own words.

So what exactly does it mean when the Bible says...

___________________________________________

Jesus Has Divine Nature

The Greek words used for "divine," "divinity," "deity," and "divine nature," can mean something that is manifesting the same attributes or qualities of God, godlike, or the state of being God or being a god. Context must determine the meaning.

The Bible says the fullness of the divine nature dwells in Jesus, in His body (Colossians 2:9). This fullness dwells in Christ as a result of a decision made by God the Father (Colossians 1:19).

So does this mean that Jesus is Yahweh? It absolutely **can** mean that if the context supports this. But does it?

If we go with the idea of this meaning that Jesus is the one true God, Yahweh, then it means that God the Father somehow, at one time, made a decision to turn His Son into the same God as Himself.

Since God had to choose to place the fullness of divine nature into the Son, then this is not something the Son has eternally possessed. Trinitarian doctrine claims that the Son has always had divine nature and there has never been a time when when He lacked divinity.

The question thus remains, what was God's Son before the Father made the decision to put the fullness of divine nature inside of Him?

(Colossians 1:19)

It seems much more reasonable to me that it means Jesus is manifesting all of the fullness of the qualities and attributes of His Father perfectly, something no one else can do (at least not right now). It could also mean that Jesus is the absolute greatest of all the gods who represent Yahweh -- that third category of gods we discussed above.

Plus, immediately after saying that this fullness of divine nature dwells in Jesus, it declares that Christians have received a fullness from Jesus. If we say that the fullness Jesus has makes Him Yahweh, would we also be required to say that the fullness Christians have makes them Yahweh too?

In addition, God is going to grant some measure of this divine nature to Christians too, according to 2 Peter 1:4:

2 Peter 1:4 (ESV): ...you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

Since we all agree that Christians are not going to become Yahweh, we acknowledge that "divine nature" here means we will share in the spirit nature of God and angels, or we will manifest the qualities and attributes of God, or, perhaps, it means we will be representatives and rulers for Yahweh. Maybe it means all of the above. But it definitely does not mean we will become Yahweh.

God's Firstborn Son, Not God's Twin Brother

The Bible always refers to the relationship between God and Jesus as “Father” and “Son,” never as “brothers” or “twins.” If the Bible wanted to teach that they were Co-Equal, why wouldn't it call Jesus God's “twin brother” instead of God's “Son?”

Jesus Himself used the term “brothers” to mean “equals” (See Matthew 23:8). In addition, the Apostle Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, used the word “brother” to mean “equal” (Philemon 1:16; James 4:11-12). However, Jesus used the term “Father” to refer to a superior. (See Matthew 23:9; John 14:28)

So, what does the Bible mean when it says Jesus is the “Son” of God? Well, it actually means almost the same thing as when we say a human is the son of a father: It means the Father gave life to Jesus, taught Jesus, and Jesus obeys the Father (John 6:57; John 8:28-29; John 5:19-20; John 5:30; Hebrews 5:8).

What is the correct interpretation of Philippians 2:6?

Philippians 2:6 (NET): who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,

Philippians 2:6 (NIRV): In his very nature he was God. But he did not think that being equal with God was something he should hold on to.

This passage, in either interpretation, doesn't agree with the traditional Trinity Doctrine's claim that Jesus has always been Co-Equal to God the Father.

The NET Bible, NASB, and ESV all render this verse to show that Jesus did not even think that He should grasp at being equal to God. This would mean Jesus never was equal to God [in authority, at least].

The NIRV, NIV, and other Bible versions render this verse to show that Jesus did possess equality with God in heaven, but when He became a human, He gave up this equality.

Neither of these interpretations can harmonize with the traditional Trinitarian claim that Jesus has always been Co-Equal to God.

What is this"equality" that Jesus give up (or never had, depending on the interpretation or translation) in Philippians 2:6? If it is the “equality” of nature we spoke about above, then Jesus gave up His divine spirit nature when He became a Man. On the other hand, if this is “equality” in position or authority, then Jesus gave up (or never had) equal authority with God the Father.

If we go with the ESV/NET interpretation, I think we must say that it refers to equality of authority, because other Scriptures definitely teach that Jesus possessed the same divine spirit nature that God possesses (John 1:1; Colossians 2:9). If we go with the NIRV/NIV interpretation, then we could say that it refers to equality of nature, and Jesus gave this up when He became a human being.

In addition, what does it mean for Jesus to exist in “the Form of God?” The Greek word is “morphe.” Greek experts and dictionaries are divided on the meaning of this word. Some say it means “the outward appearance of,” and some say it means “the true nature of.” That is why the ESV/NASB render it as “form” and the NIV/NIRV render it as “in very nature.”

If we go with the ESV/NASB interpretation, it would mean that Jesus reflected God's qualities and nature, but may not necessarily have the exact same type of essence that God has. If we go with the NIV/NIRV interpretation, it would mean that Jesus did possess a nature identical to the nature that God possesses. Neither of these interpretations says that Jesus and the Father live together inside of the same Being.

What is the correct interpretation of Colossians 1:15?

Colossians 1:15 (ESV): He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

The Greek phrase for "firstborn of all creation," according to what I have researched, is most likely in the "partitive genitive" form, which is a fancy way of saying that the firstborn mentioned must be included as part of the group called "creation" here.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament, and in the Greek New Testament, the phrase “firstborn of (someone/thing)” is used in one of two ways:

1. To say that the one who is “firstborn” was caused to be born by that someone/thing mentioned.
2. To say that the one who is “firstborn” was a member of the group that the someone/thing mentioned is part of.
   

Option 1 doesn't work for Colossians 1:15, because the rest of creation could not have caused Jesus to be born, since the rest of creation did not exist until it was created through Jesus. So we are left with option 2: Jesus would be included among the group that is called “creation.”

Usually in the Bible, the word “firstborn” refers to the first son born into a family or the first of a new type of thing or experience – in other words, it usually means the first in chronological order. There are, however, a few occasions where it may not refer to the chronological first, and instead, it takes on the symbolic meaning of holding first place. One such Scripture is Psalm 89:27. Even in that Psalm, with the symbolic use of the term “firstborn” over the kings as meaning “Highest of the kings of the earth,” it is still including the firstborn king inside the group called “kings.”

So, while admittedly, “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 may not refer to Jesus being first chronologically (even though that idea is present in Colossians 1:17-18), it is most likely still placing Jesus within the group or category called “creation.”

It should be noted that in Colossians 1:18, and in Romans 8:29, the Apostle Paul uses the word “firstborn” to mean that Jesus is the first chronologically to rise from the dead to immortal life and the first chronologically to have the new resurrection body.

There are four main ways of interpreting Colossians 1:15:

1. Jesus is the first creature that was ever made by God, thus He is the first being ever “born.” (Compare Proverbs 8:22-24)
2. Jesus is the first of the New Creation humans who have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of them. (Compare Romans 8:29)
3. Jesus is the Preeminent or Supreme One among all the creatures God has made. (See the ESV, NASB)
4. Jesus is the Preeminent or Supreme One over all the creatures God has made. (See the NIV, NLT)
   

However, option number 4 is not a valid option, if indeed the Greek structure of Colossians 1:15 is in the “partitive genitive." Some Bible experts and scholars do not think that this Greek phrase is in the “partitive genitive" sense, therefore, they say Jesus is excluded from the group or category of “creation,” and Jesus was over/outside creation.

I recommend you do your own research on this topic to come to a satisfying conclusion. Here are two links to get you started on this: Restoration Light and Scriptural Truth.

___________________________________________

Co-Eternal and Uncreated?

Is it true, as the Trinity Doctrine says, that the Son was never created, but instead is eternal and has always existed with the Father?

Proverbs 8:22 (NET): The LORD [Yahweh] created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.

This verse clearly says “Wisdom” was created by God as the beginning of God's works. Some translations say "produced" instead of "created," but it's the same idea. Feel free to check out various Study Bibles produced by a wide range of scholars to fact-check this for yourself.

Many Bible scholars say this “Wisdom” of Proverbs 8 is the same as "the Word" [Jesus] from John 1:1. This is based partly on what the Apocrypha says about "Wisdom," which closely resembles what the New Testament says about Christ. In addition, 1 Corinthians 1:24 explicitly says that Christ is "the Wisdom of God." (The Jewish Apocryphal book of Sirach, says "Wisdom" is the Word from God's mouth and was the first thing created by God.)

To me, this is pretty convincing that the writers of the New Testament viewed the Son of God as Wisdom, and at some point, was created or brought into existence by Yahweh. However, I will admit there are many different interpretations of Proverbs 8, and there are different ways these verses can be translated. Please research this for yourself before arriving at your own conclusion.

Jesus, at John 6:57, says Christians will live because of Jesus in the same way that Jesus lives because of God the Father. How can Jesus be Co-Eternal if He received His life, and continues to live, because of the Father?

If Jesus is the Almighty Supreme Being, Source of all life, then He would not need the Father to give Him life or keep Him alive, would He? How could there ever have been a time when the Father had to grant life to the Son, if the Son is Co-Equal and Co-Eternal? (John 5:26)

There is Only One God? - A Fresh View of God for 2015

There is Only One God (The Shema)

One of the most important beliefs to the Jewish people and Judaism has always been “The Shema,” putting faith in only One True God:

• Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (ESV): "Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Yahweh] our God, the LORD [Yahweh] is one.”
• Jeremiah 10:10-11 (GW): But the LORD [Yahweh] is the only God. He is the living God and eternal king. ...Tell them this: These gods will disappear from the earth and from under heaven because they didn't make heaven and earth.
• Isaiah 43:10 (GW): "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD [Yahweh]. ... “No god was formed before me, and there will be none after me.”
• Isaiah 44:8 (ESV): ...And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

The New Testament teaches the same important doctrine:

• Mark 12:29, 32 (ERV): Jesus answered, "The most important command is this: 'People of Israel, listen! The Lord our God is the only Lord.'”… The man answered, "That was a good answer, Teacher. You are right in saying that God is the only Lord and that there is no other God.”
• James 2:19 (ESV): You believe that God is one; you do well.

This is why the Trinity Doctrine originally developed. Christians were trying to use logic and philosophy to figure out how they could hold onto the Shema, which Jesus said was the most important command (Mark 12:29), while adding the new Christian doctrine that Jesus was called God (John 1:1; John 20:28). How can we profess the truth that there is only one true God at the same time we proclaim that the Father and the Son are both called God?

Many early Christians, after pondering this, decided that there were only two options:

(A): Jesus and the Father must somehow be the same only true God

OR

(B): If Jesus was not the same God as the Father, then Jesus had to be a false god (idol).

These early Christians just could not see a third option. They had become convinced that the Bible only speaks of two categories of gods: The Only True God and false gods (idols). So over the centuries, they thought-up and built the Doctrine now known as the“Trinity,” to demonstrate that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) must somehow be the One True God together with the Father.

But is this accurate? Does the Bible only speak of two categories of gods, or are there other categories? Were these early Christian thinkers correct, or did they unintentionally create a logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy?

Is there actually a...

___________________________________________

A Third Category of Gods in the Bible

The Holy Bible shows that there is indeed a third category of gods – and this category is made up of human beings and angels who represent Yahweh, speak for Yahweh, or rule over Yahweh's people under His authority.

At John 10:34-35, Jesus says that Jewish judges who represented Yahweh were called "gods" by Yahweh Himself in the Bible (Psalm 82). Jesus is using this to prove that there can be multiple lower gods who serve and represent Yahweh, without committing blasphemy or violating the Shema. At John 10:36 Jesus puts Himself in this category of "gods," but in a much higher position than those judges were.

You can't say that Yahweh that was sarcastically mocking those judges by calling them “gods,” because Jesus explicitly used the fact that those judges were legitimately called “gods” to support His own claim to be a God and the Son of God. Jesus realized some people would try to get around or explain away Psalm 82, though, and that is precisely why Christ makes a point of saying “The Scripture cannot be broken.”

So, we can see that Jesus was correcting the Pharisees' and Jewish leaders' mistaken belief that there were only two categories of gods – The Only True God and false gods (idols). And it just so happens that the early Christians who developed the Trinity Doctrine had this same mistaken belief because they failed to appreciate Jesus' words here. Yes, unfortunately, Trinitarians adopted the same incorrect views on “gods” that the Pharisees had.

This passage of Scripture poses huge problems for the Trinity Doctrine. If Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh God Almighty, when confronted by others, why would He skirt around the issue and deceptively appeal to human beings who were “gods,” in order to justify His own claim to be God. If Jesus were Yahweh, that's all He would need to appeal to. Jesus would have said: “I am the Lord your God. My miracles prove it. Worship Me.” It makes no logical sense for Jesus, if He were Yahweh, to place Himself in the same category of gods as the human judges in Psalm 82.

In addition, as further proof that a third category of gods existed in the Bible, Psalm 8:5 (in the Hebrew text) says that the holy angels are "gods” and Yahweh declared that Moses was a "god” also (Exodus 4:16; 7:1).

Psalm 45 may refer to a human Davidic king of Israel as “God,” yet still shows that Yahweh is the God above Him. (Psalm 45:6-7)

Surely Trinitarians do not (and surely the Pharisees also did not) claim that Moses, holy angels, and Davidic kings committed blasphemy by being referred to as gods by Yahweh! So why do they insist that there are only two categories of “Gods” that Jesus could belong to, instead of this third category?

Plus, does semantics and the creation of new words like "one substance" really magically solve the problem of worshipping two different Persons, while still claiming to hold onto Monotheism?

___________________________________________

Is Jesus the Same God as the Father, or a 2^nd God?

The Bible does call the Son (Jesus) “God” or “god.” Some of those verses are beyond dispute – there is no doubt among the language experts and Bible scholars that Jesus is referred to as God in these verses:

• John 20:28
• John 1:1
• Isaiah 9:6 (as a second fulfillment at least)

Many experts and scholars also believe Jesus was called “God” in the following Scriptures as well (but there is some dispute among them):

• Romans 9:5
• 2 Peter 1:1
• Titus 2:13
• Hebrews 1:8
• Hebrews 3:3-4
• 1 John 5:20
• Acts 20:28
• John 1:18

As we saw above, the Bible says there is a third category of “gods,” those who receive God's Word and speak as God's representatives and/or rule as God's designated king or governor. But does Jesus belong in this category or does He actually exist in the very same being of God (Yahweh) as His Father? Lets see what the Scriptures say on this:

• The God worshiped by the Jewish patriarchs and forefathers, was not Jesus, but instead was God the Father, who resurrected Christ (Acts 5:30; John 8:54; John 4:21-23; Acts 3:13).
• The Father is the invisible God whom no one can see, but the Son is a unique visible God that people have seen and touched (John 1:18; Colossians 1:15).
• John says that the disciples did see and feel the Son, then he writes that no one has ever seen God at any time (1 John 1:1-2; 1 John 4:12).
• Jesus made a big point of saying that the Father is one witness and the Son is a second witness. He bases His whole argument in John 8 on the fact that they are two individuals, which to most listeners, would imply that they are two separate beings, not one being (John 8:17-18).
• In the book of Acts, the disciples continued to proclaim the Father as the God whom the Jews worshiped, who has appointed Jesus as His separate designated Ruler and Representative (Acts 1:7; Acts 2:22; Acts 2:32-36; Acts 3:13; Acts 3:22-23; Acts 3:26; Acts 4:27; Acts 5:30-31; Acts 7:55-56; Acts 17:30-31).

There are really only two Scripture passages which can legitimately be used to support the belief that the Father and the Son are the same being or exist in the same essence of God – John 10:30 and 1 John 5:20:

• John 10:30 (NIV): “I and the Father are one.”
• 1 John 5:20 (NIV): We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Scholars are divided over whether 1 John 5:20 is saying that the Father is the true God or the Jesus is the true God. Given that the beginning of the verse refers to Jesus as “the Son of God,” and it says that the Father is “the true one,” it seems much more likely to me that John is referring to the Father as “the true God” here.

Now, regarding John 10:30, we have already seen above how Jesus responded immediately after making this statement. In John 10:30-32, the Pharisees were mistaken about what Jesus was claiming, and were jumping at any reason to try to murder Him. So Jesus corrects them, as shown above in the “Third Category of Gods” heading. He placed Himself in the category of gods which receive God's Word and represent Yahweh to His people.

But what did Jesus mean when He said He was “one” with the Father? Lets see if other statements by Jesus can shed some light on this:

At John 17:22-23, Jesus further explains what He means when He says that He and His Father are "one." He says it means they are in "complete unity" or "agreement." Jesus even says that His disciples will experience this same “oneness” with the Father and the Son. Obviously this cannot be speaking about being the one true Supreme Being. No, instead, this is talking about being in total unity of purpose, desires, and actions. It really has nothing to do with their divine nature, essence, or being. That was not being discussed anywhere in the context of either John 10 or John 17.

In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus shows that a husband and wife becoming “one” in marriage means that they are “united,” “joined together,” and should not allow anyone to separate them.

So we can clearly see Jesus is consistent in how He uses the word “one” and speaks about “oneness with God” or “oneness with others.” Bottom Line: “One” means united in harmony, not united as one being or one essence.

Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is the exact copy of God's being. A copy of something is different from the original. It can be exactly like the original, but it is still not the original. Therefore, Jesus is not the same being as God. He is a separate being who perfectly reflects everything that Yahweh is.

___________________________________________

The Son has a God Above Him

If Jesus is Co-Equal to God the Father, and if Jesus is the absolute Almighty Supreme Being, then Jesus shouldn't have another God above Him. But He does! (See Hebrews 1:9; Revelation 3:12; Ephesians 1:17; John 20:17; Acts 2:36; Hebrews 5:8)

The most common explanation of this by Trinitarians is that Jesus only had a God above Him while He was a human being on earth, in the form of a slave (Philippians 2:6-8). The problem with this explanation is that, in Revelation 3:12 and John 20:17, it is the glorious resurrected Jesus speaking, not Jesus in the form of a slave on earth.

In addition, 1 Corinthians 11:3 declares that God is the Head of Christ. This was written years after Jesus returned to His glory in Heaven. We can thus see that Jesus has a God above Him even in His glorious, exalted position as Lord of all (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

An alternative Trinitarian explanation for these passages is that in the personal relationships inside of the essence of the One Being of God, the Son has always (for some mysterious reason) subjected Himself to the Father and obeyed His commands. However, this appears to contradict the traditional Trinity Doctrine which declares that the Father and the Son are eternally Co-Equal.

Some Trinitarians elaborate further and say that the Father and Son are only Co-Equal in their nature (essence or “species”) but not in position or authority.

But even if we grant this explanation, in order for the Trinity Doctrine to work, there must still only be One God. But if Jesus is called God and Jesus is saying that another God is above Him, simple mathematics proves that there are two Gods, not just one. The Bible should have said that the Person of the Father is above Jesus, it should not say that Jesus has a God above Him.

Continue Reading More in this "Rethinking the Trinity" Series:

Jesus is Divine, but is He Equal to God?

Go back to the Introduction to Rethinking the Trinity